On May 6, 6:17*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:

> You can't keep goats or cows or buffalos without land.

In India many without land often living in mid size towns keep a cow
or two, a buffalo, or a couple of goats.

Almost a quarter of Mumbai milk is supplied by herds of buffalo
keepers who buy all required fodder from farmers or grass merchants.

> Do you
> have any idea how much plant material they consume?

I know that very well.

> How about how
> much water a cow or buffalo consumes? If they can keep a goat or
> cow or buffalo they can use the land that supports those animals
> for farming/gardening instead How about how much water a cow
> consumes, which would be much more advantageous.

Those who have land they too keep milking animals so that they can
have income from them too.

> >> No one needs to
> >> engage in animal husbandry anywhere. They are farmers. They can
> >> grow anything. There are hundreds of commercial crops to choose
> >> from.

> You do not need to cultivate land to grow crops on it.
> Google "no-till farming".

No till farming that was promoted by some Japanes man has not proved
very successful. Tractors, Harvestors, and the lot are still being
manufactured. Of course in India they use mostly castrated bullocks.

> And so what if there are lands that can't be farmed? There are
> plenty that can. Duh.

The lands those can be farmed are being farmed to maximum.

> Your stupidity and ignorance are getting to me.

That is a reaction of an ignorant person.

> >> Better yet, they can use their land to support themselves
> >> directly, growing grains and legumes and veggies and oilseeds
> >> and nut and fruit trees and sugar plants and fiber plants and
> >> so on. They can make their own energy from plant sources:
> >> methane/alcohol/woodgas....
>
> >> Milk is for babies. Cow's milk is for cow babies. Buffalo milk
> >> is for buffalo babies. =A0This is what a REAL scientist would
> >> conclude after examining the evidence. Of course, common sense
> >> will do the job just as well.
>
> > If what you are saying gets established there is no need for milking
> > animals, is there?
>
> Duh.
>
> One more stupid post like this and I am going to killfile you.
> Think and do your homework or keep your mouth shut.

With your killfile threat I am terrified.

> As for whether that fellow is really a doctor or not is irrelevance.
> That line of inquiry is a waste of time and amounts to nothing
> but a personal attack.

I am sure you have good practice of that.

> You judge a person on the Usenet by the quality of their posts.
>
> Sid